user 37518
Well-known member
When opposing arguments are purposefully suppresed or dismissed without a proper scientific basis because they don't conform to the general "consensus", it stops being science and becomes religion or politics.
Antidepressants and the maggots of the mind
- Thread starter Tubetec
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Apparently I am too optimistic for this room...
Copernicus had difficulty publishing his understanding about the solar system hundreds of years ago.
Popular climate science is the poster boy for not embracing opposing opinions.
Scientific method is still alive but not well...
I have found properly supported scientific arguments in a handful of books, but not in mass media.
JR
Copernicus had difficulty publishing his understanding about the solar system hundreds of years ago.
Popular climate science is the poster boy for not embracing opposing opinions.
Scientific method is still alive but not well...
I have found properly supported scientific arguments in a handful of books, but not in mass media.
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
There's a great book detailing how this (and everything else about drugs in the US) came about: "Pharma" by Gerald Posner. Highly recommended reading.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Pharma/Gerald-Posner/9781501152030
As for SSRI-type anti-depressants: Shenanigans aside (in many cases pharmaceutical companies get favourable study results by withdrawing an already under way study before it is finished and start over until the results fit, this has happened at least with one major SSRI study) just because there is no link between serotonin levels and depression doesn't mean that SSRIs don't work to treat depression. There is a lot of emperical evidence to support that they do help patients.
I am waiting for informed comments about the study to appear here (among other places):
https://sciencebasedmedicine.orghttps://theness.com/neurologicablog
living sounds
Well-known member
We have examples here of people believing absurd things here, but that's the brewery. 
I am only about 20 pages into the 2nd Alex Epstein book "Fossil Future", and he begins by describing about how expert opinion gets synthesized, evaluated, and disseminated. In this modern culture of news media promoting ideologies independent of facts, we routinely see distortions.
I won't further corrupt this thread with another climate rant.
I believe science is still alive, just not well... we need more STEM education at every level.
JR
I am only about 20 pages into the 2nd Alex Epstein book "Fossil Future", and he begins by describing about how expert opinion gets synthesized, evaluated, and disseminated. In this modern culture of news media promoting ideologies independent of facts, we routinely see distortions.
I won't further corrupt this thread with another climate rant.
I believe science is still alive, just not well... we need more STEM education at every level.
JR
user 37518
Well-known member
That's the problem of science based on consensus, which many times has proven to be just an ad populum fallacy. In my opinion, when a scientific explanation is accepted on the basis of what could basically be described as a voting system, it should not be accepted with blind faith nor to be considered as hard science, this is even true of the so-called "hard sciences". Let me give you an example:
The famous Fermat's last theorem was considered something basically unsolvable, even in Star Trek TNG it was mentioned by Picard as one of the unsolvable problems of humanity that even up to the 24th century (the time setting of Star Trek) couldn't be solved. None of the worldly acclaimed mathematicians would dare try solving it because of the shaming he or she would receive from the academic community. Many "proofs" were published but they all inevitably were dismissed and reputations were ruined. Such is the case, that the guy who actually solved it (Andrew Wiles) had to work for 10 years "undercover" without telling no one that he was working on it.
What about the consensus on physics at the late XIX century that "everything in physics was already settled"? There is a famous anecdote—told by Max Planck himself—of Max Planck's PhD advisor who, in 1874, told Planck that he shouldn't pursue a degree in theoretical physics because there wasn't much left to do in that area, the advisor is not to blame since this was indeed the general consensus at the time. But the irony was that such comment was told to the guy who basically invented (or discovered) quantum mechanics.
Another example: Everyone up to the middle of the XX century believed that the Old Testament of the Bible was completely unreliable because the extant copies were only the so-called Masoretic Texts dating to the X century A.D., in the late forties the Dead Sea scrolls in Qumran were found, which are Old Testament manuscripts dating to around 200 B.C., when they compared them to the Masoretic text they found that they were practically the same; most of the differences were very minor (like spelling, or word ordering). Consensus failed.
Also, just because some great or renowned scientist makes a prediction that is accepted as gospel truth, it doesn't mean it will happen: Lord Kelvin made some great contributions, but he also made some ghastly declarations, for example: "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful." He also predicted that due to the rate of burning fossil fuels, the supply of oxygen in the world would only last 400 years (from 1898), something that has been disproven since the discovery of marine photosynthesis in 1986.
My point is that even though it is true that many people go into conspiracy theories when trying to disprove consensus, it is also true that consensus has proven time and time again that it shouldn't be taken as a settled matter on a particular issue. And it is also true that consensus has been one big impediment to discovery since the voice of the majority inevitably and purposely seeks to block the voice of the few.
Last edited:
living sounds
Well-known member
The process of science can be and is messy, but it does eventually produce results that withstand falsification. Humans are fallable, the scientific process is designed to nevertheless work.
There's a great lecture by Neil DeGrasse Tyson from more than 10 years ago about the "god in the gaps" about how even the best scientists of the past filled the gaps in their knowledge with fiction. From 2006, but still relevant the same today:
Still, I would not put some established modern consenei (is that the plural?) in that category. Gravity, evolution, antropogenic climate change are supported by mountains of data.
In contrast, the benefits of SSRI are much less well established, subject to interdisciplinary scutiney and the results of many psychological/sociological studies even less. And that's even without obvious faults in the real world application of the scientific process like the p-hacking scandal.
But the good thing is that the process can be made more rigorous and transparent, e.g. by having to register studies in advance so stealthy redactions are no longer possible.
There's a great lecture by Neil DeGrasse Tyson from more than 10 years ago about the "god in the gaps" about how even the best scientists of the past filled the gaps in their knowledge with fiction. From 2006, but still relevant the same today:
Still, I would not put some established modern consenei (is that the plural?) in that category. Gravity, evolution, antropogenic climate change are supported by mountains of data.
In contrast, the benefits of SSRI are much less well established, subject to interdisciplinary scutiney and the results of many psychological/sociological studies even less. And that's even without obvious faults in the real world application of the scientific process like the p-hacking scandal.
But the good thing is that the process can be made more rigorous and transparent, e.g. by having to register studies in advance so stealthy redactions are no longer possible.
user 37518
Well-known member
I am not putting the scientific method into question, I am putting scientific consensus into question. Of course, consensus is important, but when people say that something has been "settled by science" when it is based only in consensus, I think it is definitely not settled and should be put into question (which is one of the tenets of science). Scientists like to portray the face of objectivity, but they are not objective, in paper, science is full objectivity, in practice it is definitely not, I can tell you this since I am involved in academia.
living sounds
Well-known member
Philosophically there is no such thing as "settled by science". But in real world applications the existance of gravity and the spherical shape of the earth are no longer put into question (yes, there are always a few cranks who think otherwise).
Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be open to a much different theory of gravity (after all, there are lot's of gaps in the knowledge), but for now the mechanisms are very well established and have been proven right in the real world.
It is highly dependent at which field of academia you are looking. Comparably clear-cut mathematics and physics are certainly less subject to these problems than "gender biology", which from my own subjective point of few seems to be permeated by ideology today (and probably always was). BS persists. Much easier to disprove a cold fusion experiment. ;-)
+1 At one time scientific consensus was that the world was flat, the sun orbited around the earth, etc.....
Consensus is routinely manufactured to sway low information media consumers.
Question everything and everyone (including me).
JR
user 37518
Well-known member
I'm not putting hard based experimental facts into questions, I am saying that conclusions based on consensus which are in turn based on conjecture, speculations, simulations, or inconclusive results are not to be trusted.
And while cold fusion is much easier to discredit, it is not the case that only the soft sciences are easier to disprove. We cannot prove/disprove many things which are given today as pure facts by the majority, simply because it might be impossible—at current time—to set an experiment to test it or it can't impossible to prove. Some of these are related to physics, mathematics (in which with the incompleteness theorem takes place), biology, etc...
In my experience, and I really mean this, there is only one real consensus and trait among scientists and that is arrogance/pride.
living sounds
Well-known member
Can you share examples? I find this really interesting!
user 37518
Well-known member
Sure, as I mentioned, the Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that some things in mathematics can't be proven, here is a very simplistic video which explains it in 5 minutes The paradox at the heart of mathematics: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Some things in physics can't also be experimented (at least not in the present moment) as I mentioned previously, because when you are dealing for example with such tiny things like electrons, the mere fact that you measure it alters drastically the result outcome, this is basically the uncertainty principle in a nut shell. So for instance, no one has ever seen an electron for this same reason but its presence has definitely been proven by JJ. Thompson, still, we know there is something called electron which produces some effects, but what exactly it is has not been proven, most people think of it as some kind of ball bearing, is that truly what it is? AFAIK nobody knows. Same thing happens in the large scale, when you talk about massive distances, etc... Even the Wilson/Penzias experiment which discovered cosmic background radiation supports the Big Bang theory but does not 100% prove it, how would you definitively prove the Big Bang? again, here consensus makes the decision.
Finally, future predictions, most are based on simulations or projections and the uncertainty is extremely high as to definitively prove such prediction, how would you definitely prove or disprove what such predictions claim?you can't do it beforehand, only in retrospective, if your prediction claims that in 30 years there won't be any drinking water left, you wait 30 years and determine if it was true or not, at which point it becomes a past prediction.
Last edited:
Off topic but always amusing...www said:
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
I think in Cosmology the consensus to wether our Universe expands ad infinitum or will collapse back into itself at some point in time changes every few decades.
But I was thinking along the lines of more practical science, with the elephant in the room these days always being climate change. Are there any good examples about a consensus that really shouldn't be a consensus in the more practical field?
user 37518
Well-known member
I don't think there shouldn't be a consensus about anything, the problem is when consensus is given as fact and everything else is rejected, that is the problem. Consensus is necessary, but it should be viewed as "we all think this is true" not as "we all know this is true and anyone who dares to say otherwise will suffer the consequences", the latter is mostly the case.
living sounds
Well-known member
If scientific skepticism were consequently taught in schools...
It's obvious that a lot of people profit from scientific illiteracy and don't want this implemented...
For decades I have been confounded by space. My meat computer has difficulty with the concept of an infinite space.
Climate change is an objective fact, always has and always will (change).
Do you want a list? I have been trying to resist starting another rant (from me).
The obvious false consensus is that extreme weather events are caused by climate change this has been expanded to include forest fires, drought, floods, etc. These are considered "low confidence" for being influenced by human activity according to real climate scientists.... but that does stop the sky is falling claims from people who want President Biden to declare a climate "emergency". Al Gore just got another 15 seconds of fame by comparing climate crisis deniers to the Uvalde police. He remains the jokes he has been for years but lacking all humor. (I realize I am breaking my own rule against dissing celebrities, but he deserves it for that disgusting pathetic comparison.)
One very strong point offered early in the new Epstein book (Fossil Future), is how climate scholars have discounted and ignored how deaths caused by climate change have fallen so dramatically over the last century despite rising CO2.
Epstein said:
The world need fossil fuel wealth to "master" climate change. He has a few other thoughtful reframing concepts but I know I am already writing more than I'd like.
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
That's a lot of politically charged ranting and a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy, but no actual science cited.
Objectively:
It would be a strange coincidence indeed if all the fossile hydrocarbon burning since the beginning of the industrial age and it's obvious correlation with changes in the atmosphere, melting of ice, warming of the seas and a myriad of other findings from various disciplines were just happenstance.
Especially, since there are very well-studied processes to make at least a general causal link to the correlation.
And on top of that, climate change is directly contrary to many people's world view, identity and way of life, so they have a vested interest in opposing the findings, just as some of the most profitable industries who demonstrably engaged actively for decades to influence public perception about climate change.
So they conjure up a conspiracy by the scientific community.
Really, what is more likely (rethoric question)?
appeal to purity? moi?
global warming is an objective fact accepted by all (most) climate scientists.
dissemination...
who is that they?
sloppy thinking...
I am surely repeating myself but the Koonin book "Unsettled" is the most definitive exercise I've seen using government and UN data to disprove unfounded conclusions about climate crisis.
JR
PS: Somebody challenged me about oceanography. I have not dealt with them since the early 70s but I was hired to be a research "scientist" (cough) on Columbia university's RV Conrad research vessel. My job would have been as a gloried electronic technician keeping the crude satellite location technology (pre-GPS) operational, to accurately locate ocean bottom cores. The primary function of the research vessels back then was to map and collect core samples from the ocean floor. In the old days they dropped TNT over the side and measured the sound reflections coming back (sonar bottom mapping). Around the time I was working in the machine shop they developed an air pressure device (IIRC called a bloffer?) to make the sound impulses for bottom mapping instead of using dangerous explosives.
My draft board intervened and drafted me before I could be flown out to meet the ship somewhere in the south pacific. Getting drafted sucked bad enough, but going to Ft Dix NJ instead of Tahiti and Figi was rubbing salt in my open wound. Of course working on the boat would be 30 days at sea, and only two days a month in some exotic port, imitating my best "drunken sailor" character. I regret that life path that fate decided for me... My older brother RIP did a stint as a seaman (wiper) performing manual labor on an earlier research vessel cruise. He had some stories.
